I found the data on the Q motor. It has an impulse of 87,950 N*s. The propellant has a mass of 44 Kg, which also is the mass of the motor case. The ISP is 204. For some reason I thought this was a sugar motor, but the ISP says it must be an AP motor.

I also looked up the data for the Aerotech N2000. It has an impulse of 14,000 N*s, with a propellant mass of 7.676 Kg and a total initial mass of 12.412 Kg. It's ISP is 186.

This simulates to 136k feet. The second-stage ignition would occur 29 seconds into the flight at an altitude of 38k feet.

I don't know what a dispersion analysis is. Is that to determine the maximum range assuming the rocket flew at an angle, or the second stage takes off horizontally?

Also, who is helping you to design, construct and launch the rocket? This rocket is definitely beyond your level of experience, or almost anybody else's level of experience. There a very small number of amateurs that have the expertise to build and fly such a rocket. It would be rather amazing if a rocket like this could be built and flown in a couple of months.

I re-ran the simulation with the first stage riding up with the rocket until just before second-stage ignition, and I got a much higher altitude. The optimal second-stage ignition time was at 39 seconds at an altitude of 63k feet. The maximum altitude achieved was 232k feet!

In my earlier simulation the first stage was ejected immediately after burnout. The is not ideal for several reasons. The velocity and the air density are higher at this point than at 63k feet. Also, the mass of the empty first-stage offsets the extra aerodynamic drag caused by the 150mm first stage versus the 98mm second stage, and it allows the rocket to coast to a higher altitude.

"This rocket is definitely beyond your level of experience, or almost anybody else's level of experience. There a very small number of amateurs that have the expertise to build and fly such a rocket. It would be rather amazing if a rocket like this could be built and flown in a couple of months."

Typical Model Rocket guy comment and your not qualified to make that judgment. I'm not tied to TRA/NAR rules and I don't get a kick out of wasting money flying model rockets. My company and my team are qualified to fly any motor the FAA will approve. What a joke it is and it's that kind of thinking that keeps people from getting into space! Solid rocket motors are inherently very safe to fly. A 13 year old could build this rocket or any model rocket they are very simple and ridiculously easy to fly.

OOOooo a "Q" motor BFD! If your in the proper place and take the proper precautions like in a bunker duh! It's nearly impossible to get hurt or hurt someone. If there's not a living sole within 10 miles of your launch site. What if it blows up then? Two LOX/Kerosene rockets blew up near the ground on Matagorda and no one was injured. This is a solid motor and much safer albeit more likely to fly too.

Monroe

The dispersion analysis it designed to insure the public does not get hurt. The FAA uses POST or TAOS and I'm looking for some help with that. Please leave your personal whatever at the door and stop trying to hold up progress will you?

"This rocket is definitely beyond your level of experience, or almost anybody else's level of experience. There a very small number of amateurs that have the expertise to build and fly such a rocket. It would be rather amazing if a rocket like this could be built and flown in a couple of months."

Typical Model Rocket guy comment and your not qualified to make that judgment. I'm not tied to TRA/NAR rules and I don't get a kick out of wasting money flying model rockets. My company and my team are qualified to fly any motor the FAA will approve. What a joke it is and it's that kind of thinking that keeps people from getting into space! Solid rocket motors are inherently very safe to fly. A 13 year old could build this rocket or any model rocket they are very simple and ridiculously easy to fly.

OOOooo a "Q" motor BFD! If your in the proper place and take the proper precautions like in a bunker duh! It's nearly impossible to get hurt or hurt someone. If there's not a living sole within 10 miles of your launch site. What if it blows up then? Two LOX/Kerosene rockets blew up near the ground on Matagorda and no one was injured. This is a solid motor and much safer albeit more likely to fly too.

Monroe

The dispersion analysis it designed to insure the public does not get hurt. The FAA uses POST or TAOS and I'm looking for some help with that. Please leave your personal whatever at the door and stop trying to hold up progress will you?

Monroe,

My comments have nothing to do with "personal whatever", except that I am concerned about your personal welfare. I think it's great that you want to win the Carmack prize and the N-Prize, but you need to be realistic about it. Get some help from people who have flown rockets above 30k feet. They'll tell you that it's not as easy as you think. If it was that easy other people would have reached 100k feet years ago.

woah you guys need to keep this *** off the forums.. there's a lot of people who you may want to ask for help at some point reading this. i know you two have some drama, but please don't air it where i have to read about it.

Dave I've already done that! What do you think I've been doing theses past few years? What about the potential 33,000 lbs thrust rocket dragster I crew chiefed for? That was a horizontal rocket? What about all my experience in the Navy working on Jet engines and working with the FC's on the missiles that flew from the USS Antietam? Besides that I'm not a stupid fella I don't claim to be a rocket scientist but that's just not rocket science anymore. You just don't get it. It's just not that big of a deal and that's the problem here. This kind of "Special Thinking" needs to end. It's NOT that big a deal as much as you might like it to be It's reall not that tough to launch a solid fuel rocket to 100kft. So I'll just have to show you that's all that's left to do.

I need a dispersion analysis not a sim of the flight I knew it had to be two stage I knew the "Q" would not make it. To me all that stuff's a no brainer. Should be easy to figure just in your head.

Another thing I'll tell you is a unguided rocket is an iffy thing too.

Build it fly it and fix any problems as they arise that's how you make progress it's not a feel good thing it's a JOB.

woah you guys need to keep this *** off the forums.. there's a lot of people who you may want to ask for help at some point reading this. i know you two have some drama, but please don't air it where i have to read about it.

Criticism is key in making something work. It's easy to believe that your idea is a good one, but proving that it works is another matter, and often it's much quicker to prove that it can't.

A forum where no one ever disagrees is pretty useless except as a fan club.

I re-ran the simulation with the first stage riding up with the rocket until just before second-stage ignition, and I got a much higher altitude. The optimal second-stage ignition time was at 39 seconds at an altitude of 63k feet. The maximum altitude achieved was 232k feet!

In my earlier simulation the first stage was ejected immediately after burnout. The is not ideal for several reasons. The velocity and the air density are higher at this point than at 63k feet. Also, the mass of the empty first-stage offsets the extra aerodynamic drag caused by the 150mm first stage versus the 98mm second stage, and it allows the rocket to coast to a higher altitude.

That seems unlikely. What software are you using, and how are you estimating the drag coefficients? How much mass for interstage, aerosurfaces, payload &c. are you adding?

If it's guided, there's the guidance hardware mass; if it's unguided, dispersion and off-nominal thrust due to gravity turn in a long coast is much higher.

does the carmack prize specifically state that you have to use GPS to verify? would a measure of horizon curvature taken from a photograph be sufficient? alternatively a radar reading or whatever else you can use to get an altitude measurement? i don't know how relevant the difference is, but i know monroe's rocket does all of its acceleration in the first 4 seconds and i can't see how a small GPS could possibly hold a lock through that.

The original wording was "$5k for the next ground launched rocket flight above 100,000' with GPS log and successful recovery." He later said that any launch of 100,000' above the launch point would be fine, so a flight to 200kft from a balloon at 100kft would work too.

Yes the GPS will likely lose lock at launch, unless it's a high-end GPS. Many people who have flown GPS units on rockets report that it comes back after burnout, so you still get a perfectly fine log of apogee and the coast down. Obviously you want to pick a GPS unit that works at 100,000ft.

@James, the last I heard it was at $10,000. I'm still trying to join the ARocket list, but I haven't gotten a response from them. Does anybody have a good contact address for the ARocket list administrator?

I agree Ben and I invite the criticism. I don't have all the answers and I cant think of everything. It also gives me a chance to prove things and voice my views of the New Space Frontier. Am I always right no, but I'm willing to build it fly it and overcome the barriers. This old way of thinking is one of my main concerns. Safety is paramount indeed and of course we want to minimize the risk. But risk have to be taken and I'm just trying my best to insure we take the right risk not the wrong ones. I do strongly believe that rocketry is serverly hindered by the lack of understanding by the public and the paranoia that results from that kind of thinking. If I had the money I'd blow up a few rockets on purpose just to prove how it's effect's are minimal.

Same with hydrogen in balloons it's relatively safe just because of the Hindenburg everyone's paranoid about it. In weather balloons or zero pressure balloons it's not a big deal at all! The heat raises so fast it really hard to get burned. Maybe some hot latex or plastic could fall back on you but you could practically hold one and light it yourself and not get burnt. On the ground the balloon it's self while it's being inflated keep's you away from the most dangerous area the balloon it's self.

Actually Ben the first wording was directly to me if you remember correctly and in his next email he opened it up to everyone else. Your welcome guy's I'd just like to make that clear He Challenged Team Prometheus FIRST then decided to open the offer to everyone CORRECT? Of course nobody seems to have mentioned that. So yeah I do make a difference and I am heard and I do thank John for his effort in advancing amateur rocketry and yeah I'm proud of it!

Same with hydrogen in balloons it's relatively safe just because of the Hindenburg everyone's paranoid about it. In weather balloons or zero pressure balloons it's not a big deal at all! The heat raises so fast it really hard to get burned. Maybe some hot latex or plastic could fall back on you but you could practically hold one and light it yourself and not get burnt. On the ground the balloon it's self while it's being inflated keep's you away from the most dangerous area the balloon it's self.

I agree with you on the hydrogen balloon thing, Hindenburgs bad pr put a jinx on them but when you think about it if a traditional heavy than air aeroplane falls out of the sky burning there is usually 100% fatality but when the Hindenburg fell out of the sky burning about 2 thirds survived and went on to do films and documentaries describing how bad it was. Admittedly it was a nasty way to go for those who did die and there were some horrific injury's amongst those who survived. But a 2 thirds survival was i think quite good for those early days of aviation i think if one was built today with modern flame retardant materials rather than low grade thermite there would be an even higher survival rate during a catastrophic failure .

_________________Someone has to tilt at windmills.So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!